you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TheYogi 6550 points6551 points 7 (705 children)

edit For the MANY people asking what they can do: 1. Educate yourself and become involved politically. 2. Support groups like earthjustice.org and beyondpesticides.org /edit

I suspect this type of activity is systemic across every major industry. Let's look at the pesticide industry, shall we? Most people don't understand just how problematic pesticides are not just for the environment and farm workers, but our entire society. Did you know that one of the most popular families of pesticides used in conventional agriculture, organophosphates, has been widely implicated in severe developmental neurotoxicity issues in children? As these studies showcase, these pesticides, found in normal amounts in children, not children with high exposure, are implicated in reduced IQ and cognitive abilities:

Take a few minutes to ponder the ramifications; the food we eat may literally be making us dumber. And yes, food is a major pesticide source despite what industry might claim: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18414640 and http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408197/. Continuing on, the most important enzyme responsible for breaking down these pesticides in the human body is called serum paraoxanase. Some people have a lot of paraoxanase activity and are able to break down the pesticides really fast. Guess which subpopulation scientists are beginning to find has significantly reduced paraoxanase activity? People with autism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16297937 -- and this year a large study found associations between organophosphates and autism: http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/news/newsroom/8978. More work needs to be done on this front, but the early findings are concerning to say the least.

The data against organophosphates continues to pile up and has resulted in the thousands of scientists represented by the Union of Concerned Scientists wanting organophosphates banned. Unfortunately, politics wins at the EPA: http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/center-science-and-democracy/promoting-scientific-integrity/epa-and-pesticides.html

I only spoke of the neurotoxicity issues above. Make no mistake, these pesticides cause harm across a variety of spectrums. Not just on children's nervous systems but everything from gestation duration and birthweight to reduced lung function and lower sperm count in humans to changing the behavior of bugs. Some example studies:

Please be sure to also look at the studies showcasing that these products are "safe". I'd suggest starting with Naled, an organophosphate. The 2006 EPA reregistration document is here: http://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/naled_red.pdf) and you'll find the list of utilized, "Studies" begins on page 105. You will also find that 98% of those studies are conducted by the chemical manufacturers themselves (in rats and rabbits) and, "Unpublished" meaning they never underwent peer review. Yet when independent scientists conduct studies, they are finding what I posted above, in children.

As the Union of Concerned Scientists stated in the link I posted above, "Another scientist said that the agency "often ignored independent scientific studies that contradicted the industry-subsidized study." Especially in cases where chemicals' effects on health are poorly understood and studies disagree, said the scientist, the EPA should not automatically side with the pesticide industry. "If there is disagreement, doesn't that cry out for further research?" A report of the EPA Office of the Inspector General also suggested that the EPA had not done enough to protect children from pesticide exposure."

The Naled reregistration document proves this as, of the 91 cited studies, all but one were conducted by industry and unpublished.

Despite countless scientists calling for change, greed and regulatory capture hold the winning hand. And it is the common man who suffers. Whether it be oil or pesticides, those in power have placed their chess pieces over the years in a masterful game and at this point, one has to wonder if we have to simple concede check mate.

edit As long as this post is getting the attention it is, allow me to elaborate on how bad it gets. Remember the pesticide Naled (an organophosphate) I spoke of above? It is also sprayed over millions of people in the name of mosquito control. When sprayed on agriculture fields, there is a 48 hour reentry interval where workers cannot reenter without protective gear (http://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/web/pdf/naled_red.pdf). When it is sprayed over residential areas for mosquito control, there are no such protections; kids are out running around the same day. The thing is, when sprayed in agriculture fields, they use large droplets so it contacts the bugs. When sprayed for mosquitoes, they aerosolize it so it hangs in the air. The problem there is, the US military figured out in a study that aerosolized Naled is 21x more toxic and causes lung and liver necrosis (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01685774) -- In other words, 155lb farm workers can't enter an area it is sprayed for 48 hours but 30lb kids are out the same day despite their form potentially being upwards of 21x more toxic than what the farm workers are suscepted to.

edit2 a good response was made to my edit shown here: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/4ckbod/hundreds_of_thousands_of_leaked_emails_reveal/d1j5n10 that I haven't had time to research but I feel it's only fair to provide both sides of the argument here. Frankly, I'd love to be wrong about the mosquito control aspect so would love others to comment on his response.

[–]ThePrower 53 points54 points  (10 children)

I go to college in Carlinville, Illinois where Syngenta pesticides are used. Our water supply is now overrun with Atrazine, a known endocrine disruptor, and almost nothing is being done about it because of corruption like this.

[–]Lukyst 10 points11 points  (8 children)

Why aren't anyone taken direct action against the facility, to stop its production?

[–]rambobilai 14 points15 points  (0 children)

the academic expert who started the fight against atrazine, Tyrone Hayes, was hounded by Syngenta for years for publicly speaking out about it. It went to the extreme point where he was afraid of his life and his public credibility was destroyed by the corporation.

More - http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/02/10/a-valuable-reputation http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/01/23/new-documentary-tells-biologist-tyrone-hayes-tale-of-atrazine-frogs-and-syngenta/

[–]registeredtopost2012 14 points15 points  (4 children)

You'd be branded a terrorist.

[–]LifeontheTaiga 17 points18 points  (2 children)

And here is why the word "terrorist" is useless. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

The government wants us to think "terrorists" are boogiemen trying to harm us directly with suicide bombs and guns. The government has a much more broad definition of "terrorist" and that includes anyone disrupting the status quo.

Edit: It's narrowing down the potential descriptors of such a broad spectrum of possible activities from murder, bombing, arson and hijacking etc to also include protesting, marchs or occupy wallstreet type activity as "terroristic".

It's newspeak version 1.0.

[–]registeredtopost2012 12 points13 points  (1 child)

The government's definition of terrorist is anyone who disagrees with the term, which is why our schooling should promote thinking for yourself--no sense in giving any government, good or not, that kind of a powerful tool.

[–]Rinse-Repeat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Familiar with John Taylor Gatto? Author of "The Underground History of American Education"


[–]jiggatron69 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Or The Punisher. I'm almost to the point where I think Corporations and their owners need a little fear in their diet to really make them take a step back.

[–]ThePrower 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To my knowledge the government had known this could happen but went with it anyway since it was cheaper. There was a state of emergency declared because of public outcry but it's still above safe levels. This is goes to show you should use a water filter whenever possible.

[–]TheYogi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My heart goes out to you and everyone in your area. Unfortunately, this is all too common.

[–]8u6 861 points862 points  (257 children)

Wow. I can't fathom the evil of some humans.

Thanks for your post.

[–]ShellOilNigeria 1415 points1416 points  (190 children)

I'm not OP but in regards to talking about evil, below is a case that I like to bring up from time to time because it shows the despicable lengths that some people will go to in order to make money -

Shell Oil acting as a multinational global conglomerate and one of the largest companies on earth were paying bribes to government officials in Nigeria. They were paying the military to conduct raids on innocent protesters homes and ended up hanging innocent protest leaders in order to suppress the protesting against Shell.

My username is my attempt at education via a spoof on the Human Rights Abuses by Shell Oil in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria.

For more information about Shell in Nigeria, please look at the sources below.






The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York set a trial date of June 2009. On 9 June 2009 Shell agreed to an out-of-court settlement of $15.5 million USD to victims' families. However, the company denied any liability for the deaths, stating that the payment was part of a reconciliation process.[16] In a statement given after the settlement, Shell suggested that the money was being provided to the relatives of Saro-Wiwa and the eight other victims, in order to cover the legal costs of the case and also in recognition of the events that took place in the region.[17] Some of the funding is also expected to be used to set up a development trust for the Ogoni people, who inhabit the Niger Delta region of Nigeria.[18] The settlement was made just days before the trial, which had been brought by Ken Saro-Wiwa's son, was due to begin in New York.[17]


On June 8, 2009, Shell settled out-of-court with the Saro-Wiwa family for $15.5 million.[3][4] Ben Amunwa, director of the Remember Saro-Wiwa organization, said that "No company, that is innocent of any involvement with the Nigeria military and human rights abuses, would settle out of court for 15.5 million dollars. It clearly shows that they have something to hide".[5]



Another article - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/niger/5413171/Shell-execs-accused-of-collaboration-over-hanging-of-Nigerian-activist-Ken-Saro-Wiwa.html

Short 10 min documentary about it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htF5XElMyGI - The Case Against Shell: 'The Hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa Showed the True Cost of Oil'

[–]EndoplasmicPanda 106 points107 points  (5 children)

Holy shit.

[–]GodsEyes 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Really... The only way all of this will end is if those on the inside - EVERYONE - stops thinking money is more important than the planet and peoples lives. It is so downstream related - meaning the ones at the top never feel any direct relation or ownership of the atrocities happing to those at the bottom, but everyone inside of these corporate / political scheme's is responsible, whether they get 10mil or 10K they are responsible, and they all need to stop. Period.

[–]HolySHlT 60 points61 points  (0 children)


[–]8u6 218 points219 points  (166 children)

Pretty fucked. Glad I left the oil industry. People need to stop supporting oil and to push renewables and accelerate these fuck es going out of business. I don't have a solution for the corruption oroblen, though.

[–]patdan10 140 points141 points  (139 children)

But how should I support renewable resources? I can't go out and get a Tesla, much as I'd want to. I want to help, I really do, but it seems like I don't have any power at all.

[–]NarfleTheJabberwock 79 points80 points  (80 children)

This. We need a plan.

[–]freshthrowaway1138 107 points108 points  (50 children)

I hate to just copy and paste but

Write a letter to your representatives, at both state and federal level. Ask them to support moving away from oil and gas imports. Support an increase in the gas tax, higher costs mean less used. Support public transit, contact your city and county representatives to see what needs to happen to increase service.

Start voting reform initiatives in your local community to increase the power of the voters.

[–]NarfleTheJabberwock 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is exactly the info we need. Thank you very much.

[–]Kyle700 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Also, writing about them in local media is definitely something that they will follow. Representatives DO care a lot about public opinion.

[–]freshthrowaway1138 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Absolutely! Politicians have to win elections and moneyed campaigns are only halfway marks, just look at Jeb's failure. Catching voter's eyes is a big thing.

[–]megashadowzx 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Another alternative to a tax increase on gas is a tax break on alternatives, since many people can't afford electric vehicles and a higher tax may seem punitive.

For example, in my home state of Georgia, you can claim the following credits (these used to be much higher, when these vehicles were less common and more expensive iirc):

  • Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) - 10% of the vehicle cost or $2,500 (whichever is less)
  • Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) - 20% of the vehicle cost or $5,000 (whichever is less)
  • Electric vehicle chargers - 10% of the cost of the charger and its installation or $2,500 (whichever is less).

EDIT: However, this tax credit is no longer available unfortunately, as it was meant for the year of 2015. I'm not sure if there are plans to reinstate a modified version for this tax year, although I would certainly hope so.

[–]queen_of_the_spammed 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Another thing that has had a huge effect; the recent movement in large investment funds, including the Rockefeller family, and many large university endowments, and pension plans, to DIVEST from fossil fuels. This has hurt many large oil companies worse than the press is sharing.

Look up the boards of directors of large financial entities you're aware of, especially those with whom you're already involved, and write letters urging them to DIVEST.

[–]OrbitRock 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I've been trying for a long time to get people to start up something like a sub where we seriously discuss this sort of thing, the ramifications of it all, what we as individuals can do, and how we can spread knowledge about it.

I've been doing a lot of research on my own. I have a lot of books that make some very good cases for how we can begin to move forward. I've been starting up at practicing permaculture and attempting to start degridding my own household, if only to act as a model, in the hope that maybe the work of people who do this stuff early on can help make a larger transition more easy for the rest of us in the future.

On top of all that I am trying to spread the idea of how we can utilize memetics (not internet jokes, but the science of how ideas spread) to attempt to wake people up to this sort of thing, or get them thinking about it more.

I think that such a thing can happen if we get enough people interested in this sort of thing. The companies that rule our world are corrupt, and meanwhile there are ways the people can start to move forward and take back some of our power and autonomy from the system as it exists. Let's spark a discussion on how to get this sort of thing rolling.

[–]Leporad 11 points12 points  (19 children)

Invest in nuclear, wind, and solar.

[–]Dr_Worm_ 4 points5 points  (5 children)

Well being fair, nuclear isn't renewable

[–]EliaTheGiraffe 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It produces more energy than burning fossil fuels does.

[–]davewasthere 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And it's far safer than all other methods. I do like the idea of thorium though... But if we could figure out energy storage, we get enough solar energy hitting the planet for our needs.

[–]Leporad 5 points6 points  (2 children)

There is enough thorium to power the world for thousands of years, in comparison there is enough coal to power the world for a couple hundred.

[–]Epsilight 5 points6 points  (8 children)


[–]weshna54 1 point2 points  (2 children)

So I had an idea the other day when the CA lottery was blown up. This may not be as reasonable a solution for everyone because I live in a city full of hippies and college kids but what if we went door to door and asked people to sign up for like a $10 a month donation and have their name and address put on a registry. Then using some sort of formula using google maps solar exposure analysis map and the economic situation of the members we systematically use the money collected to buy people solar panels. With enough people we could get deals with solar panel companies and slowly get an entire city totally solar powered. I seriously want to do this but all I've got is motivation I'm a 19 year old that doesn't know shit about shit so if anyone thinks this is a feasible good idea advice would be greatly appreciated

[–]cantgetenougheline 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you can afford it, make part of your home off grid. Solar panels are a good solution. I feel that if enough awareness leads to increased decentralisation of renewable power at home owner levels, the relevance of coal and oil will decrease.


There is no single plan but there are many things that you can do. The best thing is to educate yourself to how you consume non-renewable resources in your daily life.

Something that I found really useful is to "think like a rich person". I use to buy the cheapest shoes I could find and I'd burn through six or eight pairs a year. When I started on focusing on getting the most bang for my buck over the period of a year, I saved and bought a $125 pair of shoes which lasted the entire year. Now, instead of spending $150 to $200 a year on shoes, I was saving $25 to $75 over the course of a year. I consumed less resources and therefore impacted the environment less.

[–]Spoonshape 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Primarilly by not using resources. Cut down or eliminate meat from your diet. Buy a bike and use it for short trips. Use public transport if it is available.

Send an email to your politicians telling them they should be encouraging things like tax breaks for wind farms and solar.

The Tesla and Prius route is mostly for people to advertise how green they are. Real ecologists ride a bike.

[–]8u6 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Get a job in renewables, try to use less gas, save up for an EV if you can. Tesla is announcing the Model 3 tomorrow...

[–]Akiba89 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I can't even afford a bottom of the line car right now

[–]Icedcoffeeee 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Don't feel like you can't do anything, because you can't do everything.

Eat less meat if can or want to, use less plastic, save water/don't buy bottled unless it's absolutely necessary. Maybe someone else can afford to buy a Tesla, or have solar panels on their roof.

If we all reduce in a different way, it comes together.

[–]yoshhash 2 points3 points  (0 children)

amen. Buying less of stuff is far more effective than buying more of stuff, regardless of how smart/efficient/innovative it might be.


Even with a tesla, you need electricity. And where does electricity come from?

[–]Kkaiku 11 points12 points  (1 child)

A powerplant (even the dirtiest) is much more efficient at creating energy than our own personal little combustion engines.

[–]Great1122 3 points4 points  (0 children)

http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/06/where-electric-vehicles-actually-cause-more-pollution-than-gas-cars/397136/ It all depends on where your energy comes from. If it comes from coal, which provides a vast majority of people with power, then you'll actually pollute more ghg from charging your electric vehicle. Personally I think for electric cars to really get going, three things need to happen: a smaller charge time to get to 80%, going a lot more miles with that said 80%, and finally coal plants need to completely die out. A natural 4th requirement from these 3 things is for charging stations to be as ubiquitous as gas stations.

[–]registeredtopost2012 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Usually coal.

Nuclear power plants are incredibly efficient, a handful of the things produce a disproportionately large amount of this country's electricity.

You also have your renewables, but without any economic way of storing that energy, they can't be considered for grid capacity.

[–]ethertrace 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Write to your representative (esp. via a published op-ed) and explain why they should be pushing for legislation to increase research and reliance upon renewable energy. Anyone can write a letter and it has more pull than just about any other method that doesn't involve direct action or a sustained campaign, especially if you get it printed in a paper with a wide circulation and it calls on that representative by name. Believe me, they have people monitoring that kind of thing.

[–]seventysevensevens 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Check if you have any government programs to help with the cost of solar panels, any up tick in demand is a signal that people want a green change.

[–]freshthrowaway1138 1 point2 points  (0 children)



[–]Kadoba 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In my state (Oklahoma) we're able to change a percentage of our energy consumption to wind energy. The cost is marginally higher but it directly supports renewals.

[–]redbaronD 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The reason you can't buy a Tesla cheaply is that the oil industry is so large that they make it nearly impossible for any renewable resources to make a profit. They bribe our politicians into passing legislation that cuts their own taxes, and raises the taxes on renewable resources. In NC, it is especially bad, because our governor literally worked for Duke Energy, a firm which made their money disposing of coal ash by dumping it into rivers.

[–]hoppierthanthou 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh. As much as the oil industry does to keep out competition, Teslas are expensive because at the end of the day, they are still a luxury car. The Nissan Leaf is a fairly affordable EV, but its range kind of sucks.

[–]PunksPrettyMuchDead 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Buy and ride a bike. Only buy used clothing. Try to shop locally. Learn to use tools and DIY as much as you can in your home and car. Grow a garden. Keep chickens for eggs. Stop eating beef frequently, learn to love chicken and pork. Start doing meatless mondays. Plant a few 20 dollar trees. Walk or bike to the store. Don't buy food that comes in a box. Advocate for smart growth - higher density, redevelopment and infill, and don't let your community break ground in green space.

There's a lot we can do as individuals. One or two things don't seem like much, but if you can do even a fraction of these and make it look good enough that neighbors start to join in, we can make a small difference even at the individual and local level.

[–]hallowgal 4 points5 points  (0 children)

As someone still working in O&G, I'm starting to feel more guilty about it every day. I need to get out too.

[–]Go0s3 6 points7 points  (5 children)

You really think that renewables are any different. People can't be trusted with people.

It is why both Capitalism and Socialism individually fail without any balance.

[–]Tassietiger1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By "people" you really mean governments need to start pushing renewables and putting extreme pressure on these oil companies to clean up their act or cease operation within their countries, the common people can't do shit while the governments are unwilling to do anything and are often working alongside these companies. Now obviously some countries have indeed gone almost completely renewable but the oil industry will always have power as long as there are petrol cars on the roads so we must instead hope that governments will try to give incentives to people to make more efficient and informed decisions such as was recently announced in New Dehli. Unfortunately governments make an obscene amount of money from these companies and often they are working hand in hand in forming policies that favour the multinationals with little to no transparency whatsoever. Hopefully articles and leaks such as this will start to inform the public just how wide spread this corruption is on a global scale and push people to take action against it. Don't hold your breath though.

[–]halfaton 2 points3 points  (0 children)

god bless capitalism ...



That goes both ways. The settlement was accepted, which casts a shadow on the principles of both sides involved. Of course, it's not that simple, there were probably threats and Shell almost certainly could afford better lawyers and easily get away paying nothing more than legal dues, but money was still accepted over pursuing justice. I can't say the people were wrong to accept the money, it almost certainly was more beneficial than pursuing justice in a case they had a strong risk of losing, but their reasoning is not wholly pure.

Of course, there is rampant failure in the system and this is an excellent example of that. Corporations are allowed to be treated as people, but that hasn't extended far enough. They are given "human" rights to an extent, but not are subject to law and punishment to a similar degree. All the good of being an enormously rich person (many, but not all, of whom are difficult to distinguish from their corporations) and none of the bad of being an actual person. And here (and there, and everywhere) we see them acting as proxy governments throughout the world, doing things few real first-world governments could get away with.



[–]ShellOilNigeria 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That's interesting.

I would like to research that a little. Do your have any good local articles about it?



[–]ShellOilNigeria 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Many thanks.

[–]Tim_Burton 12 points13 points  (34 children)

Is it evil, though, or is it just human nature that allows these things to manifest? I would imagine that a single human, when confronted with something that's a red flag, would try to fix it, but when it's an entire worldwide industry, each little bit of misinformation, negligence, laziness, or ignorance piles up and just spirals out of control.

We as humans were only meant to reproduce, not understand complex systems like society. It's a wonder we've made it this far, and to me, it's not surprising stuff like this happens and 'leaks' through.

I think we will forever sit on the line between extinction and survival. If something starts happening that threatens humanity, instinct will kick in and we will fix it, but once it's fixed, we revert to our old ways.

Is that what human nature is? Doing the bare minimum to survive?

[–]8u6 53 points54 points  (16 children)

Yeah I don't make excuses for it, it is evil, whether from ignorance, laziness, stupidity, whatever, I don't care.

Nobody in power ever stops their destructive actions until so much damage is already done, far past the point of "we didn't know". These people care more about their own short lives and fleeting wealth than the well being of humanity or the planet.

[–]pingjoi 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Problem is, we are part of the problem as long as we consume these products in a capitalist society.

By your own standard, we are evil too, then.

[–]Shortstoriesaredumb 10 points11 points  (4 children)

Don't use that term, evil. It's inaccurate, misleading, and self perpetuating. No one is 'evil', Hitler wasn't 'evil' He believed he was so in the 'right' that it was ok for other people to die so he could create a perfect future. You just have to believe you're right enough.

People can be stupid, self serving, and most dangerous of all they can believe they're so correct in their beliefs that others who don't believe the same are sub-human.

But there's no such thing as evil. And using that term skips past all of that subtlety and sticks a giant red label on it that stops us from looking any deeper.

[–]8u6 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I'm sure whichever label we assign you will go out of your way to be an irritating pedant.

[–]flapanther33781 1 point2 points  (0 children)


That. Is. Evil.

If you can't acknowledge that a person can be so blind and/or unwilling to work with other human beings that they feel killing them is either the only solution or simply the most expedient one ... then I don't know what to tell you.

[–]lilithbelmont 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I don't know much about pesticide corporations but usually the people high enough up the chain to be making the decisions to cover these kinds of thing are making somewhere between several times and thousands of times what is needed to survive.

[–]Torgamous 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Some stuff can be accidental, but people accidentally lobbying to keep toxic chemicals from being banned seems implausible. I can buy ignorance on the farmer's part and the EPA's, but the people selling the pesticides know what they're doing.

[–]empyreanlegacy 1 point2 points  (1 child)


That's really up to the human.

[–]publicdefecation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is both in human nature to do good and to do evil. It's in the power of each individual which kind of human nature they want to nurture.

[–]SpeedflyChris 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now go read up on Bayer selling blood products in the 80s that they knew were contaminated with HIV. They sold them to third-world nations instead after western nations started demanding that their products be heat-treated. Tens of thousands died as a result.

[–]mirrorworld_avatar_1 256 points257 points  (35 children)

We need a subreddit, or a website or a community that can dig into these things and unite people to do something while having a fun time. The sanders subreddit especially shows that when people combine programming, marketing and organisational skills they can really achieve something. We have to somehow gamify certain issues like holding shady groups and people accountable.. I mean like we need progress bars, sprints to achieve things, while framing it like a fun mystery game. It is real life but no one wants to be bored and in despair. Imagine a large group of people united in having a good time constantly pushing a certain issue. Yes many exists but not in a completely 2.0 or 3.0 way with good media curation and fundraising.

In the olden days people were united in citizen groups or labor unions or shared media platforms. In todays world people are becoming ever more like lonely islands in a fragmented media landscape. If the vast majority of people has to be united we need things like this complete with great narratives and stories that can compete with everything else available today.

[–]likechoklit4choklit 78 points79 points  (2 children)


We sit on a strange precipice of having thousands of highly intelligent experts in every field publishing their findings online. We only need 20-100 geniuses to start integrating the knowledge.

[–]ZZZZstarlightZZZZ 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I have posted a reply in this comment string about an ideal type of message board that I've found... (can't repost the link twice) which manages to do pretty good job of organizing information... removing junk comments etc. I'd love to see a "Environmental Truth Forum" started. Please message me if you do it.

[–]ChibiDragon_ 22 points23 points  (0 children)

If you decide to do something in that regard I'm a Web designer, and I'll would like to share some hours helping


I like what you're saying

[–]WeeBabySeamus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Pro-publica is the best example of what you are proposing.

They came up with a webtool that lets you input your doctor's name and get how much money they have received from pharmaceutical representatives.


Also do investigative journalism into multiple topics

[–]jawngoodman 11 points12 points  (2 children)


It is often discredited as being labeled as #JustNeckbeardThings or something like that.

[–]franker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It looks fascinating, although I'm still not sure what it's supposed to be about, other than topics that sound vaguely scandalous.

[–]Diamondzacks 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes we do. You should see to it that it becomes a thing! You even have a Web designer on board ;)

[–]Akiba89 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'd join and participate in that sub in a heartbeat

[–]fotosonics 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Please become a contributor to Vettage.com when they launch, I think you would add value. In fact everyone in an endeavor like the one you described would add value.

[–]l8_8l 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lets make it happen! I am on board, and willing to contribute technical knowledge on using blockchains/smart contracts to keep funding transparent, and automatize the organizational efforts


What we need is to gain enough attention so some main stream media will pick it up. Or get big enough on other forms of social media

[–]yaix 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We need a subreddit

Start one. I am sure there are plenty of people itt that would join.

[–]RemingtonMol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yes. Set a precedent of distributed worldly regulation. Do it. Give me a call, will make flyers. Perhaps would rather craft words or something. Either way, do it.

[–]thewitchofagnesi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Like a less ridiculous anonymous?


/r/Permaculture. You need to get out of the factory farming / wage slave system, and meeting your own energy and food needs is the first place to start.

[–]BonGonjador 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Takes care of the pesticide exposure/ingestion, too.


Something tells me that would turn into /r/conspiracytheories really quickly.

[–]pdclkdc 1 point2 points  (1 child)

it's not a conspiracy if it's true...

[–]PregnantPickle_ 15 points16 points  (2 children)

I was, until recently, a pesticide residue analyst for a private analytical laboratory handling FDA-detained international imports of fruits & vegetables, mostly from Central/South America & the Caribbean.

Many fresh items you see on grocery store shelves are most likely above the arbitrary 0.01 ppm limit placed for "acceptable" pesticides. I would routinely fail samples of a certain product, only for the LC/MS and/or GC/MS spectra to magically disappear in an identical shipment 1 week later.

When products are detained from the port, they are still shipped to their destined warehouse & the sit on FDA hold until a sample collector, such as myself, gathers ~10 lbs of product to test at the lab. I test it, give a thumbs up or down, send a report to the FDA, & then they either release it or refuse it.

Now, the matter in which I believe this whole procedure to be corrupt lies in the warehouses and the farms the product initially comes from:

The farms usually have "clean" sections and "dirty" sections. If you get caught, you have to make 5 consecutive "clean" shipments & then you're off the FDA's shit list & can ship large amounts of product without excess scrutiny. A shipment has to be a minimum of 10 cases, so I'll constantly be testing 10-box shipments 5 weeks in a row from a company that typically sends 1000's of cases/shipment. These small shipments are always pristine, & subsequently the company is swiftly taken off FDA detention. The analytical spectra for these small shipments look nothing like their regular shipments, which leads me to believe that there are separate farms for clean shipments and dirty shipments.

The other problem lies in the fact that if you're caught, your product sits at your own warehouse under your own supervision during the whole FDA detention process. If my whole warehouse is full of papayas, & I know some papayas are going to be tested that are dirty, I'll just swap them with the clean papayas I have in-house before the sample collector comes by. Keep in mind that I can't just show up & collect papayas whenever I want all willy-nilly, it's the warehouse that sets the date & time for sample collection. As a whole, that's a fully corruptible procedure that needs to be changed.

Oh, and the whole "organic" labels put on products mean nothing to me, & they should mean nothing to you either. I've failed just as many organic samples as I have regular samples for shit like azoxystrobin, imazalil, difenoconazole (popular one), carbendazim (really popular one), dicofol, phoxim, & like 80 others.

[–]TheYogi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wow. Thank you so much for sharing this!

[–]TheYogi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Out of curiosity, is there a simple(ish) way for me to test for say organophosphates or synthetic pyrethroids at home? I have no problem shelling out some money for the means to do so.

[–]rspear5 31 points32 points  (5 children)

Holy shit, my mom studies the same thing and is currently a lead researcher in the "tooth fairy" study which is about heavy metal and other contaminants in children's baby teeth. In Baton Rouge I see the sprayer trucks all the time in the summer and never realized how bad it was coming from just my mother. I need to graduate and get out of this city.

[–]spliffmastafresh 82 points83 points  (2 children)

This is disgusting. Thanks for the eye opener.

[–]thebigpink 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This man really HATES pesticides. Anytime they come up, he always has sources and proof and it is great to see. Keep spreading the word

[–]mitch44c 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Anyone want to elaborate on the pharmaceutical companies that test new drugs on citizens of third world countries? These tests cause thousands of deaths but no one cares or talks about it because these people are a lower class.

[–]IllestIllite 66 points67 points  (25 children)

I don't disagree with any of the information you posted regarding organophosphates; however, I was wondering if you have any other examples? You lead off by saying that pesticides are bad, but then only talk about one class of pesticide. Sure, this proves that organophosphates are bad, but what about the others. I don't feel that you can make such a broad claim without some other examples. Sure some are better than others, but pesticides are an integral part of modern agriculture, and without them many more people in the world would be malnourished. Basically, I agree that there are negatives to pesticides, but realistically we must strike a balance if we are to support our population. Thoughts?

[–]TheYogi 55 points56 points  (21 children)

Here's a few quick studies on synthetic pyrethroids (which is what are usually sprayed inside your house when you call the pest control guy to kill your ants). They are also widely used in agriculture.

As for producing enough food for everyone and what you mention, that is a dissertation length diatribe for another day.

[–]ZZZZstarlightZZZZ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ants hate ammonia. Wipe down cupboards and counters with it, mixed with water. Mix some dissolved Borax (boric acid) with a sugar or corn syrup, put a dollop of it in a margarine-type container with a few holes in it. Cheap.

Here is the schpiel... drug companies fund universities where doctors and scientists study their craft. Doctors usually graduate with little to no education in natural medicine... but highly educated in PHARMACEUTICALS. (For instance: Take cranberry concentrate for a bladder infection. If you take antibiotics, you upset your body's digestive balance... they kill good and bad bacteria... and your stomach is the center of your health.) Thus, too, with other chemicals... drugs... etc... where someone makes money. Alternatives can solve many problems. Save the risky chemicals and drugs for extreme need. SOIL IS ALSO A LIVING SYSTEM THAT LOSES ITS BALANCE WHEN CHEMICALS ARE APPLIED. Soil is a complex system of enzymes and microbes that break down material into a fertile base for plant growth. If you kill microbes, there is no renewing of the soil... and you are stuck in a system of fertilization and pest control. That... is stupid farming... not something to be taught in any school.

[–]registeredtopost2012 1 point2 points  (15 children)

Do any of those studies include glyphosate? I figure it's just as bad as Naled.

[–]TheYogi 2 points3 points  (3 children)

No. The pesticides I am writing about are insecticides (and mostly from the organophosphate family) whereas glyphosate is an herbicide.

[–]registeredtopost2012 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I should have worded that differently; if you had any studies about glyphosate. I figure it's one of the most common chemicals we spray on our food, if not the most common.

[–]FredrikOedling 2 points3 points  (10 children)

There are plenty of studies on glyphosate, it's classified as a probable carcinogen by WHO. Although the consensus seem to be that the quanities found in food are too low to pose any health risk.

[–]BiggusDikkus 7 points8 points  (2 children)

You're correct, but I figured I'd provide some more info for those interested.

Glyphosate is one of the safest (i.e. least toxic) herbicides we have on market. It works by targeting a specific enzyme pathway (shikimic acid pathway) that is only found in plants and some microorganisms, so it cannot affect humans to severe detriment. In fact, its LD-50 is higher than rock salt (aka it would take less rock salt to kill you than glyphosate). Even caffeine is 10x more toxic. Like another poster said, glyphosate does not bioaccumulate and biodegrades naturally from the bacteria already found in soil. A commonly spread myth is that glyphosate is an estrogen mimicker and thus an endocrine disrupter - this is false as its molecular structure is too dissimilar to estrogen. In addition, its had ~30 years of widespread use (usually under the name RoundUp), particularly with GMO crops, and there have been no convincing studies that link it to negative health affects in our livestock or humans.

The main concerns with glyphosate are 1: breeding plant resistance to glyphosate and 2: its rated as a probable carcinogen. #1 is applicable to any pesticide though, and this is an issue with greater industrial agriculture, not glyphosate in particular.

2: In 2015, the IARC body of the WHO classified glyphosate in Group 2A- "probably carcinogenic to humans." Important to note- this classification merely assesses the strength of scientific evidence that links something to cancer, but does not assess the risk of actually contracting cancer. For reference, red meat and processed meats are classified in Group 2B and 2A, respectively. Tobacco is Group 1- it clearly causes cancers. Some studies have linked glyphosate to the development of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, primarily in agricultural workers that are exposed to high doses of the chemical. However, agricultural workers are likely exposed to a lot of other carcinogens in the form of insecticides and other herbicides, so it's hard to create causal links. Glyphosate also caused DNA and chromosomal damage in human cells (in vitro tests), although it gave negative results in tests using bacteria.

Overall, though, the EPA and an EU commission's recent evaluations of glyphosate's safety are positive, rather than negative. It's important to note that most pesticides, including those used in "organic" farming, are harmful to human health- it's just the nature of the beast. Like anything to do with toxicity, however, the dose truly does make the poison.

[–]skyhigh304 2 points3 points  (1 child)

can your cite any research into your claim that-

most pesticides, including those used in "organic" farming, are >carcinogenic to humans

[–]BiggusDikkus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here is the USDA's National List of Allowed substances for organic crops. The list includes copper sulfate, elemental sulfur, borax, and borates, which I know are toxic to humans but I could not find any studies confirming they are carcinogenic. So I mispoke in my earlier post- I'll revise it so I'm not spreading misinformation.

I do know, however, that organic pesticides in general have not been subject to the rigorous toxicity tests that synthetic pesticides have, so there is much less info available to the consumer at this point. This is partly a reflection of the "if it's natural it must be safer" mentality, partly a failure of US regulations around chemical testing.

As a side note, here's an interesting study that found using organic pesticides is not necessarily less ecologically damaging than synthetic pesticides. Not only were the organic pesticides less efficient at removing the target aphid pest, but they had a similar or even greater negative impact on several other species. The reduced efficacy of organic pesticides compared to specially formulated synthetic pesticides is important to note, as it implies a greater application of the chemical is necessary to achieve equal results. I know I've seen studies on this concept, but I cant find them right now unfortunately.

[–]jmart762 2 points3 points  (6 children)

I'm curious about the effects of bio accumulation. Low doses are unconcerning until you add them up in a long-lived omnivore.

[–]Nabber86 9 points10 points  (5 children)

Actually glyphosate breaks down pretty quickly in the environment and does no bioaccumulate.

[–]zt666 34 points35 points  (59 children)

Is organic any better? Doesn't organic farming use pesticides as well? And one of the problems with organic is that they are anti-GMO.


It's nuanced. Organic farmers still use pesticides, and some of them are still very toxic to humans. The catch is that the pesticides that qualify as organic tend to be less effective at killing bugs so they must use more for the same effect, despite not being less toxic to humans.

This host of links has more information, unfortunately many are blogs (though not all are citation-free). It's far from as clear cut as is normally claimed and is really strong encouragement to develop genetic pest-resistance, so that "pesticide-free" organic food can actually be pesticide-free.









Sadly I haven't found the original article I had read about this stuff in. There's a lot of money to be made in organic farming, and a lot of people out to protect their investment through whatever means necessary. Certainly, that doesn't excuse conventional mass agriculture from its many sins, but organic farming has at least as many.

[–]Dynamaxion 30 points31 points  (31 children)

Organic food also has organophosphates, but a lot less of them.

It makes sense that you'd need less pesticides in smaller-scale farming.



[–]TheYogi 7 points8 points  (14 children)

Sometimes organic is better, sometimes not. There are times I'd much rather eat a piece of conventional produce from the farmer down the street who uses synthetic fertilizers but no pesticides versus the organic farmer in Argentina who is shipping his apple thousands of miles to me after spraying it with copper (which I'm not worried about for ME) in a manner where the farm worker spraying it wasn't adequately protected from the heavy metal.

What I tell people is from an INDUSTRIAL food production perspective, organic tends to be better. But the real answer is local and sustainable.

[–]kZard 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Local isn't always better, though. In many cases shipping produce from a very efficient farm thousands kilometres away adds less to the carbon footprint than the inefficient farming environment does. Some things just grow so much better in some areas.

[–]Lukyst 5 points6 points  (3 children)

99.9% of people in industrialized countries don't have a farmer down the street selling what they eat, so it isn't worth mentioning as an option.

[–]obvom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Organic farming, regarding pesticides, typically refers to the use of pesticides that tend to break down very quickly and will not be found in the end product of foods. As well, utilizing concepts like companion planting and biomimicry, and other permaculture concepts go a long way in making pesticides useless.

[–]slacksushi 68 points69 points  (29 children)

I always thought that maybe the increasing use of chemicals used in the production of our food and water could be a contributing factor to the rise in autism and other developmental disorders... But to see it start to become actually plausible is terrifying.

It could take several years until results are corroborated and conclusive enough that the agriculture industry has to change its pesticides. What's the alternative though? They could just change to a different, relatively unstudied group of chemicals and hold off the EPA until scientists independently find problems with it again.

It's stuff like this that makes me hate unregulated capitalism or "just regulated enough to not cause an immediate, apparent disaster" capitalism.

[–]TheYogi 36 points37 points  (6 children)

That's their exact business plan in my opinion. Fight to keep a family of pesticides on the market (no matter how deleterious) long enough to find a new family of pesticides to replace them as independent science catches up.

[–]Lukyst 2 points3 points  (1 child)

They don't make new families. They make new molecules that are trivial variations on the known tokens, to fall outside the specific molecules banned by regulations.

[–]TheYogi 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Usually, yes, you're right. But on occasion they come up with whole new families.

[–]lordx3n0saeon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It seems unfathomable until you remember they did the same thing with lead and asbestos.

[–]river-wind 7 points8 points  (2 children)

One thing to keep in mind when discussing the "rise in autism" is how we define autism, and put that in light of the decline in mental retardation diagnosis during the same time period.


This isn't conclusive evidence that the rise is autism is merely a reclassification of a subset of what was once considered mental retardation, but at least in Denmark, one pediatric study has concluded that changes in reporting practices could account for 60% of the reported increase in Autism cases.


[–]slacksushi 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is true and it is something to consider. As I said in another comment, if enough evidence comes to light about a link between pesticides and any kind of developmental disorder, serious rethinking of which pesticides to use is required. And, hopefully longitudinal studies happening recently will show a clearer answer in the coming years.

[–]HeBeatsMyMom 4 points5 points  (1 child)

One big problem with tracking an increase with developmental disorders is quantifying how bad the problem actually was in the past. In many ways the field of psychology is still in its infancy. Just a few short decades ago problems that are now considered disorders weren't even recognized. Even many that were recognized have been underreported due to the social stigmas associated with them.

Take, for example, ADD and ADHD. When I was a child those were vague ideas at best and most children who would today have been diagnosed somewhere within the spectrum of that disorder were mass labeled as hyperactive or simply "problem children". It has been easier to identify lower level retardation than those with higher functioning skills. Some psychologists speculate that some of the most "brilliant" individuals in the past could now be diagnosed as somewhere within the autism spectrum.

[–]trogdor_burnzz 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Your point about hating unregulated capitalism doesn't really make sense to me. From the original:


The EPA is a Federal Agency, not a private one. It is the EPA, in this case, that is not doing it's due diligence. A fair response would be for you to mention that the company who is producing the pesticides is more evil because they 1) create the pesticides and 2) buy out the EPA and I would say that is a totally fair discussion to have. However, to say that this is unregulated capitalism is simply not true.

[–]chesterworks 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Regulatory capture (or toothless regulation) and unregulated capitalism are different, but the effects are quite similar.

[–]Afflicted_One 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I've been diagnosed with an allergy to many conventional pesticides. Unless I've grown something myself it's a save bet I can't eat it. Even many "organic" sources are inedible. I used to eat fruits and vegetables all the time, but now if I eat just one strawberry it feels like someone is twisting a knife in my insides and I practically start foaming at the mouth.

I try to bring this up in every major pesticide thread I see on Reddit, and 9 times out of 10 my post will be downvoted into oblivion. I've been told by stark pesticide defenders that I'm either making up my condition or they start accusing me of being mentally ill.

[–]00000fucks 4 points5 points  (2 children)

You're correct that bribery and graft happen across many industries, especially in developing nations, and that the effects of some pesticides on humans is bad. However, you only present one side of the issue. Do you think we spray pesticides on crops just for fun, so some "evil" corporation can just make more money? Pesticides kill crop destroying pests, NOT using them would be much worse because your entire crop could be lost. It's a trade-off, like everything else in life, that you wholly ignore as if there is some ever present equally effective option that's swept under the rug by "evil" corporations. There isn't, and it's not. I'd rather have a crop with pesticide than no crop at all. Because in developing nations, that means people die. Same thing with spraying for mosquito's, you don't mention what happens when they don't spray, so I'll let you know, more people die from malaria.

Now back to the bribery. Of course it happens. It's the way a lot business is done in developing/non democratic countries. If a Nigerian official wants a bribe for a contract, there's nothing you can do about that. The first person/company to give him that bribe wins the contract. Do you expect some businessman to just walk away from a potential deal because he doesn't agree with some ideology? Nope, not gonna happen because there are 20 other people in line to take that same deal. If you don't, you get replaced. It's just the way it goes.

Seriously, I wish redditors made more of an effort to make balanced arguments, not just "oh look this is soo against my ideology (and therefor evil), we should not do that anymore and punish anyone who does." Do you really generate your worldview by looking at each issue through a microscope while ignoring the big picture? Because that would explain a lot.

[–]TheYogi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I understand what you're saying and don't have a great answer. In order to be sustainable, we would have to change our society and culture in ways people just aren't willing to.

As a farmer, I understand your argument. I don't use any pesticides on my farm, but I also only grow varieties well-adapted to my area and that are reasonably resistant to pests and disease. If I tried to grow corn here and my livelihood depended upon it, I'd have to use pesticides. Fact is, people want their corn and they're going to be very pissed if they can't have their Cool Ranch Doritos.

As for your malaria argument, that is not correct. But I'm a bit drained and don't feel like opening that section of pandora's box.

[–]redbaronD 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I read an estimate that solely because of leaded gasoline, every american child born before 1990 lost between 8 and 12 IQ points to lead exposure. People don't seem to realize that most of our society's items can cause serious neurological problems.

[–]dr_rentschler 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm telling you: in 50 years people will wonder how the fuck we could be so blind to the poisonous pesticides we consume today just as we wonder how the fuck people used radiation and heroin for health treatment 50 years ago. It's totally the same shit: but we were told it is safe! People don't dare to question nowadays; you're basically a conspiracy nut until it's official.

[–]RileyCurrysNaeNae 31 points32 points  (6 children)

Take this post to the top. Excellent information. You are like reddit's white knight.

[–]CritterTeacher 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I know it's anecdotal, but my grandfather owned a farm for many years, and used to spread the pesticides on his garden and wheat fields with his bare hands. Many of my family members are medical professionals, and a lot of them suspect that his exposure to pesticides may have been what caused his Parkinson's disease. I understand that when you watch a loved one suffer from any debilitating disease you want to find a reason, but knowing that he was putting out those kinds of chemicals with his bare hands makes me inclined to agree. Apparently there have been some studies possibly linking the two.

[–]TheYogi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, there are quite a few studies linking the two.

I'm sorry about your grandfather :(

[–]OrbitRock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you so much for posting this, it is a real public service to compile and spread knowledge in this manner. I've suspected this sort of thing for a long time, and your work here really helps me out, and a lot of other people too. We need to be waking people up to this sort of thing en masse, or at least as much as possible.

[–]rembr_ 2 points3 points  (0 children)


Which is one of the reasons I can't fathom how any EU citizen can be in favour of the TTIP.



[–]notkristian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You brought the sources hard. This is such a well-informed post.

[–]incredibletulip 7 points8 points  (5 children)

I don't believe the general consensus among scientists is like you say. I'm sure there are studies that show these effects and organizations against them, but have enough studies been replicated by independent organizations? I believe there are many studies showing no harm from pesticides.

[–]p1rke 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can you link these studies? I'd like to read some of them. Or if you can post some cliffs notes.

[–]Lukyst 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why do you choose to arbitrarily prefer the "no harm" studies over the "harm" studies. Surely the default assumption is that a chemical whose One Job is to be a toxin, would be in fact toxic.

[–]anadon_aeroheart 3 points4 points  (0 children)

There's still a running issue in the sciences that if you pay someone enough, they tend to do what you give them money for. Employee first, scientist second. So really, people are getting paid off to prevent consensus.

Also, the studies you speak of were already addressed as being horrendously biased.

[–]Jabbajaw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Healthcare too. Just wait.

[–]dublohseven 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Why don't you write an article on this? You basically already got it. I'd like to be able to share what you said with others but not as a Reddit post of course

[–]TheYogi 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Who would publish such an article?

[–]mindscent 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Thank you for all this. How did you come to collect all this info? Are you a journalist? If this is published anywhere, I'd like to share it.

[–]TheYogi 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It is not published.

[–]DrinkMuhRichCum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are you familiar with the organochlorine (and -fluorine, -bromine) class of compounds? You can google the research of Duk Hee Lee, but to sum up they've been linked with diabetes, hypertension, heart attacks, etc. Many were phased out as pesticides, but similar compounds are now used as flame retardants. Their use is often mandated by legislation in eg mattresses. I've always wondered if there's a similar story behind this class of chemicals. The level of stupidity involved in their continued use just boggles my mind. They're even more frightening than organophosphates in a way because their high fat solubility means their half-lives are measured in months to decades.

[–]Nowin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Um. Yay global capitalism?

[–]tamyahuNe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi, thanks for putting this together.

More on the lobby of pesticide companies :

A Toxic Affair: How the chemical lobby blocked action on hormone disrupting chemicals

Endocrination HD - Documentary

[–]amaurea 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Disclaimer: I am a scientist, but I don't work in medicine, so I'm not an expert on this topic.

Thank you for providing your sources. I've looked at the first one (Engel et al.), and its use of statistics baffles me. Here are some excerpts:

Among nonwhites, increasing ΣDAP and ΣDMP tertiles of exposure were associated with a decrease in the MDI [log 10 ΣDAP: β = –3.29; 95% confi- dence interval (CI), –5.88 to –0.70]. However, among whites, the reverse pattern emerged, with higher exposure associating with better MDI scores (log 10 ΣDAP: β = 4.77; 95% CI, 0.69–8.86).

Basically, they claim that higher exposure to organophosphates makes blacks and hispanics stupider, but makes whites smarter. That's pretty remarkable. But if you look at the confidence intervals, you see that these are very weak effects, with several percent likelihood of cropping up by chance in any individual test.

They then go on to say:

At the 24-month BSID-II, effect estimates were not heterogeneous by race/ethnicity (data not shown). Consistent with the 12-month assessment, prenatal maternal ΣDAP metabo­ lite level was inversely associated with the 24-month MDI (β = –2.08; 95% CI, –4.60 to 0.44) in multivariate adjusted models, although the effect estimates were attenuated relative to the 12-month estimates

However, here 0 slope is inside the 95% confidence interval, so what they really should say here is "At the 24 month BSID-II, no effect was measurable".

They go on abusing (as it appears to me) statistics through the article. They do not compare the number of 5%-level effects they observe with how many they should expect to observe based on the number of tests they do. They looked at 3 races, 3 genotypes and 3 levels of metabolites for each of 3 follow-up studies, for a total of at least 27 tests (and given the number of variables in their Table 4, it's likely that they checked for more correlations than just those 27, too). There is a good chance of observing a few 5%-level effects when conducting that many tests. This is called the look elsewhere effect.

I work in Physics, and to avoid getting overly excited about random fluctuations, we require at least 3σ (99.73% confidence), and ideally 5σ (99.99994% confidence) before we claim a detection. And that's after taking the look-elsewhere effect into account.

I hope I'm misunderstanding this article somehow, and that their confidence intervals don't mean what I think they do, or it really looks like everything they are seeing is consistent with noise.

[–]ZeeBeeblebrox 3 points4 points  (23 children)

Nice copypasta but your points are incredibly misleading. In particular this one:

In other words, 155lb farm workers can't enter an area it is sprayed for 48 hours but 30lb kids are out the same day despite their form being 21x more toxic than what the farm workers are suscepted to.

You make literally no reference to the concentrations one might be exposed to so saying it is 21x more toxic is downright deception. In agricultural use the allowable concentrations are 0.7 - 2.8 lb per acre, while it's limited to 0.1 lb per acre when used to spray an area.

[–]TheYogi 3 points4 points  (22 children)

The CONCENTRATION used in mosquito control is actually higher. But the DOSAGE is indeed less. But nowhere near 21x less.

[–]ZeeBeeblebrox 5 points6 points  (21 children)

What does the concentration of the original solution matter? The limits are given as weight per area, which limits the concentration of the chemical in the air, which is what actually matters. You also can't simply linearly extrapolate, the 21x increased toxicity is measured for a specific range of dosages, which you'd never even get close to reaching with a 0.1 lb per acre limit.

[–]TheYogi 4 points5 points  (20 children)

Would you be willing to elaborate? I'm open to being wrong about this aspect and actually would like to be wrong (long story).

[–]ZeeBeeblebrox 80 points81 points  (19 children)

Most biological effects do not follow a simple linear relationship, i.e. if you ingest 1 mg vs 10 mg of a toxin it's not necessarily the case that the 10x higher dose has a 10x greater effect. In fact many toxins have next to no effect at very low concentrations and only when you reach a certain concentration are there any measurable effects. So when you say aerosolized Naled is 21x more toxic than ingested Naled that does not mean that any amount of inhaled Naled is 21x more toxic than the equivalent amount of ingested Naled. It means that at the concentrations that they measured ~5-10 mg/kg that is the case.

Now at a concentration of 0.1 lb/acre even if you assume that it all stays aerosolized in the 2m near the ground where a person could inhale it, that leaves about 11 mg per meter squared or an air concentration of about 0.5 micrograms per liter of air. Now let's assume it stays aerosolized for a few hours. A person inhales about 6L per minute so let's say they inhaled the particles for 4 hours straight, at that rate they would inhale about 1400 liters or 1.4 m3. So even under these conditions (which are inflated by a factor of 10-100x) this person would inhale about 15 mg of Nelad, which is anywhere between 10-100x lower than the concentrations that were studied. Realistically I would say that with a 0.1 lb/acre coverage you'll likely get concentrations of <50 nanogram/liter of air, which doesn't even come close to the concentrations tested as part of that study.

In practice even under the worst scenario the most Naled a human could expect to inhale is about 1 mg, which works out to about 0.1 mg/kg for a toddler and 140 microgram/kg for an adult, both at least two orders of magnitude removed from the study you cited.

[–]TheYogi 39 points40 points  (4 children)

I haven't had time to research your statement, run it by colleagues, or crunch any numbers myself, but I can see you're well-educated on the subject. As such, I have edited your response into my first post so if you'd like to followup with more data, it should be seen by others.

[–]ZeeBeeblebrox 53 points54 points  (3 children)

I'm no expert on the topic, but I do have a background in science and know a little bit about dose-response relationships. Extrapolating from laboratory studies, which use incredibly high concentrations to real world usage where much lower concentrations are employed is one of the main tactics employed by sensationalist reporters, conspiracy theorists and fear mongers.

I very much commend you for linking to my post, but for anyone reading the real point is that anyone can cite a bunch of studies taking them out of context. Real science is very difficult and often contradictory, so a simple narrative like you provided is very tempting to latch onto. However pesticides are incredibly vital to be able to feed the number of people that inhabit this planet at this point. Any amount of harm done by these chemicals must be weighed against the cost of massive loss of crops to insect pests. It is possible that pesticides harm many thousands of people and this should be a continuing avenue of study, but it's also possible that the lower food prices that are made possible by the use of pesticides save many more lives than are negatively affected by their toxicity.

TL;DR Simple narratives like you provided are very appealing but they rarely capture the full complexities and tradeoffs involved when regulatory decisions are made.

[–]TheYogi 23 points24 points  (1 child)

I agree that there are tradeoffs that needs to be taken into account. It's a complex issue for sure and I appreciate you taking a more moderate position.

I understand the need for pesticides just as I understand the need for prescription drugs. However, the difference here is, when you go to the doctor and are prescribed a medication, it has gone through animal trials and at least three clinical trials in humans. Side effects, interactions with other drugs, etc are all learned about and clearly stated on the label. Pesticides only go through a few animal trials in animals. No chemical interactions are known, and we don't truly know the effect on humans. There's a reason prescription drugs go through human trials; rats are not humans. They just give us a starting point.

The problem here is, now that we are conducting studies IN CHILDREN we are seeing study after study showing deleterious cognitive effects. SOMETHING has gone wrong somewhere. If you want pesticides, then they need to go through the same regulatory framework as prescription medications. If my kid is sick I can go to the doctor and get medicine and get advise from a person with years of schooling on the potential side effects and which side of the, "Tradeoff" is best for my child. If there are tradeoffs, we should at least be able to read about them so we can determine what is best for ourselves and family.

[–]SepticCupid 16 points17 points  (0 children)

I wish more people were like you two...

[–]TheYogi 15 points16 points  (13 children)

Ok, I had a little time to read your post more carefully and read the corresponding study again by the US Military Naval Biosciences Laboratory. The problem here is, the study was using high concentrations because they wanted to find what the LD50 was. As you know, but what others may not, LD50 is the Lethal Dose where 50% of the test sample DIES. I'm not worried about LD50 as I'm not worried about acute toxicity. I'm worried about CHRONIC toxicity and developmental neurotoxicity. LD50 for the rats in the study for aerosolized Naled was 7.7mg/kg. If your numbers are right, then for mosquito control, we might expect .1 mg/kg for toddlers (did you take into account increased respiration rate for toddlers?). At .1 mg/kg for toddlers I worry about chronic exposure and developmental neurotoxicity issues associated with those exposures as these children are often dosed many times per year for mosquito control alone. And then of course there is the concern for fetuses.

The conclusion of the US Military study is, "We believe Naled should be considered to be one of the more toxic pesticides when exposure is by the inhalation route".

[–]ZeeBeeblebrox 12 points13 points  (12 children)

The numbers I used are VERY rough and it's very much possible I'm over- or under-estimating them by factors of 10x or more, although I think all my estimates are probably highly conservative. My main point is that your fear mongering is not warranted based on the evidence you provided and you severely overstated your case.

That said this is not my main objection to your post, the real issue I have is that you don't even consider that the advantages could outweigh the costs. It is possible that these pesticides are actively harmful like you suggest but that the alternative is even worse. It could for example be the case that without spraying the mosquitoes rates of various infectious diseases would skyrocket so it becomes a cost benefit analysis. If you can stop 100 kids from contracting Dengue or Malaria by giving one child a slightly higher chance of developmental issues is that not worth it? And again the point isn't that Naled saves hundreds of lives, it's that you don't even consider this possibility.

[–]TheYogi 10 points11 points  (8 children)

Out of curiosity, if I was to post a narrative about smoking and provide 15 studies showcasing its deleterious effects, would I be fear mongering?

We need antibiotics but if a new one was developed that was shown to reduce the IQ of some children, do you think it would be approved?

And aerial spraying doesn't effectively control the mosquitoes (aedes aegypti and aedes albopictus) that vector Dengue. And malaria isn't an issue in the USA.

[–]ZeeBeeblebrox 23 points24 points  (4 children)

Note that after a bit more reading I agree that spraying mosquitoes with Naled appears pretty ineffective and should probably be discontinued.

[–]ZeeBeeblebrox 10 points11 points  (2 children)


Bit of a false equivalency isn't it? Pesticides have well documented usages, evidenced by the fact that no farmer can operate without them and we could kiss more than half our population goodbye without them. This is not and has never been the case for cigarettes. Additionally if all we had was studies showing that smoking 100 cigarettes a day cause harm and you claimed that simply walking past someone smoking a cigarette can kill you then yes you would be fear mongering. Turns out that is actually the case but if that was your main source of evidence you'd still be (rightfully) laughed out of any semi-educated room.



[–]Kaiosama 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So instead of an anti-vaccine movement, all this time it should have been an anti-pesticide movement.

So breathtakingly logical it almost makes your head spin.

[–]VortexMagus 8 points9 points  (10 children)

This post should be upvoted higher.

[–]CurlyNippleHairs 16 points17 points  (0 children)

You commented 14 minutes after he posted, chill out

[–]JoeRmusiceater 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Damn son, I love a well cited argument.

[–]imliterallyfive 1 point2 points  (6 children)

This guy sounds like one of those anti-science anti-GMO loonies... But he has sources... Can someone smarter evaluate if he's full of it or not? I can't handle any more scary. This has been the most eye opening year of my life.

[–]TheYogi 19 points20 points  (0 children)

The bad news for you is I'm pro GMO IF/WHEN proper regulatory framework is in place to ensure the crop is truly safe. With that said, the proper regulatory framework is not currently in place. But I love the science behind GMO. I just understand all too well that we need to ensure that these products are safe before they are released to the public.

[–]lost_in_it_all 12 points13 points  (2 children)

I read through his sources. Some of them state things like this "CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal but not postnatal urinary DAP concentrations were associated with poorer intellectual development in 7-year-old children. Maternal urinary DAP concentrations in the present study were higher but nonetheless within the range of levels measured in the general U.S. population....However, children's urinary DAP concentrations were not consistently associated with cognitive scores."

etc etc....There is evidence to suggest some harm from organophosphates, but no reason to be obsessively worried like this guy is. He has just made it a passion of his, which is fine, but takes evidence in support of his doomsday theories and overblows the actual evidence. If you look through his history, he posts the same sources every time.

edit: some simple observations about one of his "conclusive" statements.

EDIT: For the lazier, a critique I made in another comment of one of his statements, after reading one of his sources. "Don't forget that the population you study matters. This paper looked at "predominantly Latino farmworker families from an agricultural community in California". Is it not obtuse to assume they would be at the high-end of exposure compared to someone whose mother does not work in agriculture? Thus even if there is an effect seen in this population, you can absolutely not jump to your conclusion that "don't get exposed to pesticides when you're pregnant because it shows up as lower IQ scores in your child." What an awful leap. Surely you can see your own confirmation bias coming into play here. Furthermore: "in contrast to the present findings, a few other studies reported that OP metabolites measured in children were associated with poorer cognitive abilities (Lizardi et al. 2008; Ruckart et al. 2004). However, these studies differed in exposure and/or the outcomes found to be associated with OP pesticides. For instance, Ruckart et al. (2004) examined the relationship between methyl parathion—an OP pesticide rarely used in the Salinas Valley—and found no association with general intelligence in 6-year-olds but did find adverse associations between concurrent exposure and other specific neuropsychological domains (i.e., poorer memory, attention, and motor skills). In a study of 48 children 7 years of age, Lizardi et al. (2008) reported that those with detectable levels of DAPs had a worse performance on a test of executive function, but not on the Full-Scale IQ" There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical, and at the very least you simply cannot say that if you are exposed to pesticides while pregnant that your child will have lower IQ scores. You may consider editing your post to include the caviats such as those I pointed out, if you want to be intellectually honest."

Pesiticides are interesting and certainly worth looking into and being concerned about , but they provide the large scale production we need and until there is a better solution they are here to stay, and most likely not lowering your IQ score. They are far from the alarming issue of our day, don't lose sleep over it.

[–]2Punx2Furious 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fact that people have no problem to do this kind of things for money is sickening.

I guess people like this will always exist, so maybe to solve the problem we have to get rid of the root cause, the need for money.

[–]Canucklehead99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe we're the pests. .....